[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 48 (Wednesday, April 4, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3391-S3399]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today I rise to express my strong support 
for adequately funding federal education initiatives.
  ``Education is,'' as historian Henry Steele Commager said, 
``essential to change, for education creates both new wants and the 
ability to satisfy them.'' In this ever-changing world, it is vitally 
important that we make sound investments in education. The investments 
we make today will count every day in our kids' lives.

[[Page S3392]]

  We have a real opportunity to greatly assist our schools by providing 
them with additional resources to help them meet the challenges they 
face. In my home state of Montana, schools are faced with declining 
enrollments, teacher shortages, rising energy costs, and substantial 
infrastructure needs. These are real needs that we as a nation can help 
address.
  Providing additional resources to help schools educate students with 
special needs, to recruit the best teachers, to repair or renovate 
buildings, and to educate disadvantaged students will greatly help 
educators in Montana and around the country concentrate on delivering 
the best education they can to our students.
  Senator Harkin's ``Leave No Child Behind'' Amendment goes a long way 
towards providing for these needs, making comprehensive investments in 
education programs from pre-school to college.
  This bill will help ensure that all children start school ready to 
learn by investing additional resources in Head Start programs. In 
Billings, Montana, the Head Start facility is inadequate for the number 
of students it serves. In fact, they can only keep their doors open 
through April, when most Head Start programs are able to stay open 
throughout the school year. Providing additional Head Start funding 
will help give more kids in Billings a chance to start school ready to 
learn.
  This bill also provides for full funding for the Individuals with 
Disabilities Act (IDEA). Providing this additional funding, a share 
that we have repeatedly promised to states and schools, would free up 
local and state education funds that are currently used to cover the 
cost of educating students with disabilities. With this additional 
federal support, schools and districts will be able to better address 
local education priorities.
  This bill also substantially increases funding for professional 
development opportunities for teachers, allowing them to enhance their 
knowledge and skills. Providing teachers with these opportunities will 
help teachers help be even better teachers and will let them know that 
we care about their personal education needs.
  Montana schools and teachers have had to do too much with too little 
for too long. I want to make sure I am doing all I can to help Montana 
schools overcome their challenges and focus on providing the best 
possible education to our students.
  The price may seem high. But the price we're paying by not investing 
in our education system--by not equipping our students with the skills 
they will need to be successful--will be one we'll have to pay year 
after year.
  There can be no doubt that our education system plays a pivotal role 
in establishing our quality of life and the quality of life our 
children will enjoy.
  John F. Kennedy once said, ``Our progress as a nation can be no 
swifter than our progress in education.'' Strengthening our education 
system is a responsibility all of us share--as individuals and as a 
nation. Let's call on each other to offer our resources as we build a 
better, stronger country through our commitment to our education 
system.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Specter and 
Senator Harkin in sponsoring this important amendment to provide the 
National Institutes of Health with the resources it needs to continue 
its lifesaving mission. In a historic vote in 1997, the Senate pledged 
to double the funding of the NIH over the next five years, and Senator 
Specter's amendment represents the fulfillment of that pledge for the 
coming fiscal year.
  The resources we devote to NIH are a basic investment in a healthy 
future for all Americans. Biomedical research supported by NIH has 
given us medical miracles undreamed of by previous generations. An 
irregular heartbeat once meant a lifetime of disability. This condition 
can now be corrected with a pacemaker so small that it can be inserted 
under local anesthetic using fiber optic technology. New drugs now 
allow many seniors to live a full and active life who once would have 
been disabled by the terrible pain of arthritis. Transplants save the 
lives of thousands of patients who once would have died of kidney 
failure.
  Even more astonishing discoveries will be developed in the years to 
come. New insights into the genetic basis of disease will allow 
treatments to be developed that are custom-made for an individual 
patient's genetic signature. Microscopic cameras are now being 
developed that can be swallowed by patients to give doctors an accurate 
view of the patient's internal organs without the need for risky 
surgery.
  I'm proud that Massachusetts is leading the way to this remarkable 
future. Our state is home to many of the nation's leading biomedical 
research institutions and receives more than one out of every ten 
dollars that NIH spends on research, or over $1.5 billion last year 
alone. NIH grants support essential research all across the 
Commonwealth. In Boston, researchers supported by NIH discovered a link 
between the immune system and the brain that may lead to better 
treatments for diseases like Parkinson's and multiple sclerosis. In 
Worcester, NIH funds are helping to build a new center for cancer 
research that will become a leading center in finding a cure for that 
dread disease.
  Investment in research is the foundation on which the state's 
thriving biotechnology industry is built. There are more than 250 
biotech companies in Massachusetts that give good jobs to thousands of 
professionals across the state. These companies are an important 
partner in the nation's commitment to promoting the health of all our 
citizens.
  The future of biomedical research is bright, provided that we 
continue our strong national investment in discovery. Senator Specter's 
amendment will give NIH the resources it needs to turn the 
breakthroughs of today into the cures of tomorrow, and I urge my 
colleagues to support this important legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I have a unanimous consent request I would 
like to propound to see if we get agreement. I believe Senator Domenici 
and Senator Conrad are familiar with it and are prepared to proceed on 
this basis.
  I believe we have all signed off on this.
  I ask consent a vote occur in relation to the pending amendment at 3 
p.m. today, and the time between now and then be equally divided, and 
no other amendments be in order prior to the vote.
  I further ask consent that the next four amendments in order to the 
substitute be the following in the following order: Specter regarding 
NIH, Landrieu regarding defense, Collins regarding health--home health, 
and Conrad or designee regarding debt reduction.
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, if I could say to the leader 
two things. One, we have a slight problem. The fourth amendment will be 
a Democratic amendment. We will let you know what it is; we have a 
couple we are kicking around--a Democratic amendment.
  Mr. LOTT. Let me make sure I understand what you are saying. This 
indicates Conrad or designee amendment regarding debt reduction. Are 
you now saying it may not be about debt reduction?
  Mr. REID. It may not be. There is a small universe. We will let you 
know what it will be.
  Mr. LOTT. If I can then modify my consent, that we line up the next 
three and we confer further on what the next couple will be after that?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, again for clarification, I believe that we 
have worked it out so we can go back to the original request identified 
as Specter on NIH, Landrieu regarding defense, Collins regarding home 
health, and Conrad or designee regarding debt reduction.
  Of course, these amendments would be subject to the usual rules, and 
second-degree or some other agreement as to how they would finally be 
disposed.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, Senator Dorgan has been waiting here 
literally

[[Page S3393]]

all afternoon. If we could give him 15 minutes, since he has been 
waiting since 12:30 today to speak.
  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I am not sure exactly who we may be trying 
to accommodate. But I feel compelled to want to make some remarks out 
of leader time, if I have to. I think the best way to do it is to 
extend the time to 3:15, with the time equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DORGAN. Reserving the right to object, I don't mind extending and 
dividing it. I only intend to have an opportunity to speak for a 
sufficient amount of time. If that accommodates my interest, I ask my 
colleague from North Dakota, it is fine with me. If it doesn't, I will 
object.
  Mr. LOTT. I think it accommodates your interest.
  Mr. DORGAN. I am asking the Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Let me say, as I understand it, that we would then have 
less than two 2 minutes left. I ask the Senator from North Dakota how 
much time he would like.
  Mr. REID. How about 3:20?
  Mr. CONRAD. And have it equally divided.
  Mr. LOTT. Absolutely, Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I will try to set the example of not 
speaking at great length hoping others will follow. I am hoping that 
maybe the points I make will be sufficient without it being at great 
length.
  My colleagues, I haven't spoken about the budget resolution because 
we are dealing with a lot of different issues and I have been meeting 
with foreign dignitaries and because I have such ultimate confidence in 
the managers of this legislation. Senator Domenici doesn't need a 
speech from me or help from anybody. But we are here to be helpful.
  I want to make two or three points that I am really worried about.
  Are we fiddling around here while Rome is beginning to burn?
  Today, and during the last couple of days, I have been talking with 
people who are watching the stock market. Who knows what causes the 
stock market to move around? But I have also been talking to financial 
service managers from companies that watch very carefully what is 
happening in the country and in the economy. I have been talking to 
representatives of manufacturers. They are telling me that the economy 
is perhaps in more trouble than any of us want to acknowledge.
  I ask the question: OK, what do we do about it? Obviously, one thing 
is for the Federal Reserve System to do more. That is one of the places 
where I have over the years quite often agreed with Senator Dorgan in 
my exasperation sometimes with the Federal Reserve System. I am not an 
economist. I wouldn't presume to try to give advice to the Chairman of 
the Federal Reserve Board or any others.
  But it looks to me as though instead of being overly focused on the 
possibility of inflation, we are entering a period of deflation--
deflation. We need the Fed to give us a little more of a hand while we 
bring in the cavalry with some additional help.
  The only two things to do when you are having sluggishness in the 
economy is change monetary policy or change fiscal policy. Give it a 
stimulus--i.e., tax relief.
  Everybody on both sides of the aisle has been saying: yes; let's do 
more. Let's do more now. Let's do it this year. Let's make sure it is 
going to have a greater impact in the next 2 or 3 years so the people 
will have confidence, and so they can keep more of their money safe and 
invest it, and do something about the economy.
  We have two choices. The Federal Reserve can do something and/or we 
can do something.
  I think it is time that we pay a little attention to trying to find a 
way to give this tax relief, give this fiscal boost, and do it quickly.
  That is my greatest concern and why I feel compelled, as I watch what 
is happening even today with the NASDAQ, what is happening with 
manufacturing jobs, and what is happening with deflation beginning to 
creep up on us, to say I think we have to do more.
  Two other points: The pattern is clear. I have been in Congress for 
28 years--the same number of years as the distinguished Senator from 
New Mexico. Only I spent a few years--16 years--on the other side of 
the Capitol.
  What we are going to have now is amendment after amendment after 
amendment on both sides to add more spending--there is nothing new 
about that--and in areas about which I believe very strongly. 
Mississippi is a State with agriculture that is very important.
  I have always thought of myself as a heavily laden hawk when it comes 
to defense. But I also like to think of myself as a cheap, heavily 
laden hawk.
  We can all say we voted to spend more here or more there. That is the 
point.
  We are on the verge of everybody saying let's spend more. Let's have 
more for defense, education, home health care, NIH, health care in 
general, you name it. We get very comfortable when we start raising the 
level of spending.
  But there is an added problem to it now. One amendment after another 
says: Oh, and by the way, we will pay for it by taking hard-working 
people's money away from them, bring it to Washington, and keep it here 
and decide how it is going to be spent. We are taking from millions of 
laborers the bread that they have earned and bringing it up here.
  What is new? We have been doing this for years. Spend more, raise 
taxes, or in this case reduce, and pretty soon, if we passed every 
amendment that has been offered to cut the tax bill, it would be a tax 
increase.
  What is happening? I hope we will think about that and try to stop 
it.
  The amendment before us would reduce the tax cut by $448 billion and 
increase spending for education, and supposedly accumulate cash. But 
the fact is, once again, the tax relief would be reduced and more moved 
into education.
  I am not going to take a back seat to anybody when it comes to 
education. I am the son of a schoolteacher. I went to public schools 
all my life. I worked for the University of Mississippi in four 
different capacities before I began practicing law.
  I believe in public education, and quality education across the 
board; not just public education but choice. There is lots of variety 
in my area. Some of the best schools are Catholic or Episcopal schools.
  I feel strongly about education. But the question is, How much is 
enough? How can we do it all at once with a 25-percent increase, as the 
Senator from New Mexico was just saying?
  The President is asking for an increase. We are going to come back 
after the Easter recess, and we are going to go to an education bill 
which may be the most bipartisan bill of the year and which is going to 
have more spending in it. It is going to be thoughtful. It is going to 
have reform, accountability, teacher training, and all the different 
components. Yet here we are once again. Oh, yes, we will take out money 
for agriculture and from the tax relief. We will take out money for 
education.
  My colleagues, it is the same thing we have been doing over all of 
the years. It is time to stop it.
  This is the worst time to be talking about cutting down or 
eliminating tax relief.
  I spoke this morning to the heads of a couple of major companies--
J.P. Morgan and Dean Witter. I don't know what the current names are 
because they are so long. We talked about what we can do. What can we 
do? They said we support the tax relief and the sooner the better.
  I oppose this amendment because I think if we don't do it, we will 
wind up with no tax relief at the worst possible time, and we will wind 
up spending the entire surplus. This is a balanced package. It reduces 
the debt. It provides increases for defense, education, agriculture, 
and it provides tax relief for working Americans.
  There is the sign of good government in this budget resolution. 
Remember this: We get all overwrought about this. This is just the 
whistle at the beginning of the game. This allows us to go forward and 
decide how much we are going to put in appropriations for Interior, for 
Agriculture, and also the tax relief package. This allows us to just go 
forward to give the President a chance to have his program considered.

[[Page S3394]]

  I express my support for this package, express my appreciation to 
Senator Domenici, and urge the defeat of this amendment and all 
amendments that are going to keep trying to increase spending while 
cutting tax relief for working Americans.
  Thank you. I yield the floor.
  Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I remind the majority leader that we 
offered, last week, to spend this week on a stimulus package. That is 
the offer we made. We said: Look. We believe we ought to spend this 
week doing a stimulus package. Don't hold it hostage to a 10-year 
budget plan. Let's do it now. Let's provide some lift to this economy 
now. And it was rejected on the other side.
  Now they come on to the floor, and all of a sudden they are for 
taking immediate action on a stimulus package. Where were they on 
Friday when we made the offer to spend this week on a stimulus package? 
That is what we should have done. That would have been the right course 
for the economy. That is what we proposed and they rejected.
  Second, on the notion that this President somehow proposed a 25-
percent increase for education, that is not so. The chart of the 
chairman of the Budget Committee shows very clearly the President 
proposed a 5-percent increase--not a 25-percent increase, a 5-percent 
increase. Some of us do not think it is enough to deal with the 
education challenge facing this country.
  Third, the majority leader is using language very loosely, and that 
is a dangerous thing to do. He is suggesting that somebody out here is 
talking about a tax increase. No one is talking about a tax increase--
no one. What we are all talking about is significant tax reduction. We 
have even agreed on an amount of tax reduction for this year to provide 
stimulus. But we do believe that over the 10 years in the future the 
President's tax cut is too big; that it threatens to put us back into 
deficit; that it threatens to raid the trust funds of Medicare and 
Social Security. And that is no longer just a worry; that has become a 
reality.
  The two amendments that have been adopted out here--to increase 
spending on prescription drugs and to increase spending on 
agriculture--because of the way they were done, raid the Medicare trust 
fund in the years 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008--and it is all in their 
numbers, and it is just as clear as it can be. They are into the trust 
funds already, exactly what we said would happen.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, the Senator from North Dakota is next, 
and he is yielded 12 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 11\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, would the distinguished Senator yield to 
me for 3 minutes?
  Mr. CONRAD. I cannot, I say to the Senator, because we have the prior 
agreement. Senator Dorgan has been here for 2\1/2\ hours.
  Mr. BYRD. But I wanted to ask the majority leader a question while he 
was on the floor.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, this is a very interesting debate. You 
never know when you come to the floor of the Senate whether you are 
going to be informed or entertained. And sometimes it is a portion of 
both.
  I want to respond to a few things that my colleague from New Mexico 
said recently. I have great respect for him. He does quite a remarkable 
job steering the budget on that side of the aisle.
  A couple things. One, this surplus for 10 years, if you listened to 
the Senator from New Mexico, and did not know it, you would believe 
that surplus was in a bank across the street. Why, that is money that 
is already here. That is locked in. We have that surplus handled.
  The fact is, that surplus represents estimates by economists, some of 
whom cannot remember their home address, but they know what is going to 
happen 2, 5, 10 years from now. We know better than that.
  My colleague mentioned Alan Greenspan. Ten months ago, Alan Greenspan 
increased interest rates 50 basis points. Why? Because he was worried 
our economy was growing too fast. Now he is worried we might be heading 
toward a recession. He could not see 10 months ahead. We can't see 10 
months ahead. I do not know, now maybe there is a Ouija board or tarot 
card or palm reader someone got ahold of someplace that gives them more 
confidence than the rest of us about what is going to happen in the 
future.
  I hope we have 10 years of surplus, 10 years of economic growth, but 
I sure would not bank on it. We would be smart to be reasonably 
conservative in the way we deal with these estimates.
  But I want people to understand, when they listen to this debate, it 
is as if this surplus is in the bank, and it is not, and those who seem 
to allege it is know that it is not. That is No. 1.
  No. 2, my colleague said: We are going to collect $27 trillion in the 
coming years; we surely can provide a reasonable tax cut out of that.
  I do not think he meant to include $27 trillion. Madam President, $9 
trillion of that belongs to Social Security and Medicare. The people 
who pay that in, pay it in to a trust fund with the expectation that 
those who handle it will do so responsibly; that is, not spend it for 
other things but to save it in a trust fund.
  I do not expect that the Senator, or others, intend to say that $9 
trillion is available to be discussed with respect to a tax cut, and 
yet they do. It is not right. They know that.
  Then the issue of debt. I want to talk about the education issue in a 
moment. I would like to ask my colleague from New Mexico a question. 
And I would ask my colleague from North Dakota a question.
  What I show you is a description of what President Bush sent us from 
the Office of Management and Budget. And this is the budget resolution 
we have on the floor. On page 5, line 19, it says: Public debt. Public 
debt grows from fiscal year 2001--that is the year we are in--$5.5 
trillion, to fiscal year 2011, $6.7 trillion.
  Let me show what it looks like on a graph.
  Now I will ask a question, if someone would come to the floor from 
the other side so we can examine why they say you can't pay down 
additional debt: If during the 10 or 11 years of their budget 
resolution the gross debt is increasing, and if they say it is not, go 
to page 5, line 19 of their resolution.
  In fiscal year 2011, they say that gross public debt is going to be 
$6.7 trillion. Is gross public debt increasing or is it decreasing?
  We know the answer to that. No one will come to the floor to talk 
about it. I hope my colleague, Senator Conrad, will allow us some time 
when perhaps our colleagues are on the floor--the Senator from New 
Hampshire, who spoke on this at some length earlier, or the Senator 
from New Mexico, who said we can discuss this.
  There is not enough debt out there to repay? Maybe we can find some 
on page 5 of your resolution. Maybe we ought to start paying a little 
on that. Because your debt is increasing.
  We will talk more about that when someone will show up to answer a 
question. I hope we can have a discussion about that.
  I happen to think, when we talk about values, that one of the values 
we ought to think important is that if during tougher times you run up 
a debt, during better times you ought to try to pay it down. And debt 
is not just debt held by the public; it is all debt incurred by the 
Federal Government, all of the Federal Government's liabilities. And 
this, on page 5 of their own resolution, describes an increase of over 
$1.2 trillion in indebtedness or liability by the Federal Government.
  Let me turn to this amendment because we are obviously not going to 
have a discussion about this at the moment. The question of whether 
``Leave No Child Behind'' is a bumper sticker, a political slogan, or 
public policy, is what we will answer in this Chamber. Perhaps there 
are some who embrace all of that. There are some who certainly would 
use it as a bumper sticker; some as a political slogan.
  How many are there in this Chamber who will embrace ``Leave No 
Children Behind'' as public policy? That is the question. We can all 
describe our experience with education. And for those

[[Page S3395]]

who trash our education system--and there are many who do it all the 
time--I ask them, how do you think the United States of America came to 
this moment in history? How do you think we arrived at this moment? 
Might it not have been because we have a universal system of education 
in which we have a public education system that says every child in 
America--no matter from where they come, no matter how fat or thin the 
wallet of their parents, no matter their circumstances in life--can be 
whatever their God-given talent allows them to be as children of this 
great country? Isn't that perhaps what has given us this opportunity to 
arrive at this moment in history?
  Do we have challenges in this system of education? You bet we do. 
Should we fix them and address them? Absolutely. Can we do that just by 
talking? No. No. It takes some money to keep good teachers. It does 
take some money to reduce classroom sizes so kids are in a classroom of 
15 or 18 students, not 30 or 35, so they are in a school that is well 
repaired, not in some sort of a trailer outside the school, in mobiles 
that are ill-equipped.
  We need to do right by our children. That is what this debate is 
about. My colleagues have offered an amendment I intend to support. I 
am happy to support it because it moves us in the right direction. You 
can't talk about these issues without understanding a requirement to 
address them boldly.
  It is interesting; all the debate on this is about spending. If you 
don't believe that investment in our children is an investment in this 
country, then you don't understand anything about the management of 
money. There is a difference between spending and investing. When we do 
right by our kids, when we strengthen America's schools, we invest in 
this country's future. It is just as simple as that.
  Some say this is a tradeoff, this is an offset issue; it is between 
tax cuts and education. We will have a debate about tax cuts at some 
point. I happen to think we should have a tax cut. My colleague just 
described our offer to use this week for an immediate tax cut to 
provide some fiscal stimulus. The other side didn't want to do that. 
Now we have heard they would like some fiscal stimulus. We offered 
that, but they didn't want to do that.
  We will have a tax cut. We ought to do it in a way that is fair to 
all taxpayers. We ought to do it in a manner that gives this economy a 
boost. It is not a circumstance where every single dollar is offset to 
make a choice between a tax cut or education. There are some of us who 
believe that if you add the payroll taxes paid by individuals and the 
income taxes paid by individuals and if the top 1 percent of the 
American people who have done very well--and God bless them--paid 21 
percent of that, and the majority party says, we want to give 43 
percent of the tax cuts to them, we say: Wait a second. That is not 
something we ought to do. That is not a fair tax cut.
  We are going to have that debate at some point. But we ought to be 
able to provide a tax cut and also do right by our children and 
strengthen America's schools.
  The Harkin amendment has $225 billion for education and also $225 
billion for debt reduction because he also values not only investing in 
our kids by strengthening our schools but addressing this issue as 
well.
  My hope, I say to my colleague from North Dakota, Senator Conrad, and 
also the distinguished chair of the Budget Committee, is that we can 
have a good discussion about this issue of debt, the increase in the 
gross Federal debt. I don't know that we can have it at this moment 
because we are headed towards a vote.
  I would like very much to spend some time understanding how one 
rationalizes the increase in debt and the increase in liabilities in 
the Federal budget as outlined on page 5, line 19, of the majority 
budget--an increase of $1.2 trillion in indebtedness--how one 
rationalizes that with this notion that we have $27 trillion, according 
to them, in income.
  We have surpluses that are almost locked in a bank, and they have the 
key in their pocket, and they have apparently used a Ouija board to 
discern what is going to happen in the coming 10 years. I would like to 
understand the rationale of all of this. I think it is time to talk 
straight about all of these things in terms of what we have available, 
do it conservatively, and then make cautious judgments about what will 
strengthen and improve this country. Yes, a tax cut will; I support 
one. Yes, paying down the Federal debt will, and I support that. And 
yes, investing in America's schools will strengthen this country, and I 
believe we ought to do that as well.

  Madam President, this will be an instructive debate, and it will be 
an opportunity, as we vote, for people to tell us, is ``Leave No Child 
Behind'' a bumper sticker or is it real public policy this Senate 
embraces.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I believe I have 5 or 6 minutes 
remaining; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 6 minutes remaining.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We then go to a vote under the UC, as it exists.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. DOMENICI. So Senators should know that that is about the time we 
are going to vote. I want to make sure they know that because they have 
been waiting.
  First of all, I think we ought to be careful about accusing the other 
side of speaking loosely. I can see about 10 examples in my mind's eye 
of saying they spoke loosely. I choose to say they spoke what they 
believed and we speak what we believe. I don't think it is loosely; I 
think it is very deliberate, and it is very thoughtful on both sides.
  I have a rough estimate, so the American people will know. We are 
going to spend $44 billion on education this year, the National 
Government. We are going to spend $500 billion over the next decade. 
That is half a trillion dollars. So the point of it is, while some may 
not think that is enough--and maybe I would even join in saying we 
ought to do more--I think we are on a pretty good growth path for 
education. And everybody should know that over the next decade we are a 
small contributor to education. That is the way it has been. We are 
between 6.5 and 7.5 percent of public education. So everybody will know 
the dimension of our involvement.
  Nonetheless, we are going to spend half a trillion dollars. It will 
be growing substantially each year. The point I am trying to make is, 
at some point you have to raise the level of the concern for the 
taxpayer to an equal level with those who would increase spending from 
what is already a very high level of spending. So the American people 
should know we are spending a lot on education. It is going up each 
year. I just showed how much. And it is going to continue going up. 
Should we not at some point in time bring the taxpayer into this and 
say: OK, Mr. and Mrs. Hard Working American, would you like to get some 
of your tax dollars back or would you like for us to take every program 
that sounds good, no matter what the level of spending nationally, and 
let's add some more to it, and then we will consider you later on? I 
don't think that is what the American taxpayer wants.

  In fact, I think they want a fair break out of this, and a fair break 
is over the next 10 years giving them back 6.4 percent of what they pay 
in in taxes. That is what we are talking about. When we get away from 
the big numbers and get into 6 cents out of every dollar, we are 
talking about 6 percent, giving 6 percent of the tax taken from the 
taxpayer back to the taxpayer over the next decade when we are running 
very big surpluses.
  Frankly, I will answer one further insinuation. The insinuation is 
that the Senator from New Mexico is talking about these surpluses as if 
they were there tomorrow. I believe they are as good estimates as we 
are ever going to get, and there is a high probability that they are 
going to be right. But if the estimates are not any good, then they 
ought not to be any good to add spending based on them either.
  So if you have something down here where you want to spend half that 
tax money on new programs, you ought to be thinking, maybe the tax 
surplus is not real. We don't want you to think it is real because we 
don't want you to use it for tax dollars, but we would like to use it 
for something else.
  With that, I yield back any time I might have.
  Mr. CONRAD. Is there any time remaining?

[[Page S3396]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The vote is to occur at 3:20 by previous 
order.
  Mr. CONRAD. I ask that Senator Harkin be given the last 2 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I object. I don't know why we ought to do that. Then I 
get 2 minutes, too. You have been arguing for about an hour more than 
we have on this amendment. I just think, being fair, we are finished. I 
yielded back my time. That is why we still have some time left. I could 
have still been talking.
  Mr. CONRAD. All right.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
185.
  Mr. CONRAD. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 69 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--47

     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Collins
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner
  The amendment (No. 185) was agreed to.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I enter a motion to reconsider the vote by 
which the amendment was just agreed to. I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion has been entered. The clerk will 
call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, Senator Byrd has indicated he would like to 
have an exchange, a colloquy. This seems a good time to do it. I might 
say also, it would be our hope and intent now that we would go on to 
the next amendment. Senator Specter is ready with an amendment on NIH. 
So I hope we can--I talked to Senator Daschle about that--go ahead and 
proceed with the next amendment that was in order.
  I would be glad to respond to a question or a comment Senator Byrd 
might have.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may we have order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
  The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I thank the distinguished majority leader for his 
making possible an inquiry at this point.
  As Senators know, I am, I think, the Senator who has had more of a 
part in writing the Budget Reform Act than any other Senator who today 
serves in the Senate. I believe, with all my heart, that the 
reconciliation instruction process was never meant to be used as a 
procedure for cutting taxes. It has been my belief, from the beginning, 
that the purpose of the reconciliation process is to reduce deficits. 
And the process has been useful in that regard over a period of several 
years.
  I am very concerned that the Senate is about to use the process in a 
way for which it was not intended. I think a point of order, if made, 
would nail in the precedent that it is quite all right to use the 
reconciliation process to cut taxes. So I do not want to do that. If, 
and when, that time comes, I prefer to just vote up or down and let the 
chips fall where they may.
  So I have a couple of questions I wish to ask of the distinguished 
majority leader. One would be in light of the fact that we only have, I 
believe, about 30 hours remaining.
  Mr. REID. That is true.
  Mr. BYRD. And I feel sure the majority leader is concerned about this 
as much as I am because I have already heard him say some things today 
that would lead me to believe that.
  My question would be--and he might not want to answer it at this 
point--but when are we going to get to the reconciliation vote on this 
concurrent resolution on the budget? When are we going to get to it? 
When we reach that point, we need some time to debate it. I would like 
to speak at least 45 minutes or an hour on that subject.
  Our time is being eaten up. I am not complaining about that except to 
say we are not going to have enough time to debate the most important 
question that will come before us unless we get to that matter soon.
  Another question which I wish to propound to the distinguished 
majority leader, I think it is very important that the Senate have 
before it the President's budget before the Senate votes on final 
passage of the concurrent resolution on the budget. I think if we can 
see what is in the President's budget, we will see that some programs, 
that are very important to Senators on both sides of the aisle, are 
probably going to be reduced in order to make way for the tax cut. I 
think Senators should know these things before they vote on this 
resolution that is before the Senate.

  I will not proceed further to make that case. I think it is a solid 
case, and I think there is every reason why Senators ought to have the 
budget at their fingertips before they cast that final vote. That has 
been my hope all along.
  The President had earlier indicated, I believe, that he would submit 
his budget to the Congress on this past Monday, and then later changed 
his mind to say it would be sent up on the 9th, which will be next 
Monday.
  I must say, earlier I had thought, Mr. Leader, of using some dilatory 
tactics in order to put the Senate over to Wednesday. I watched the 
debate on the natural gas bill in 1977, at which time two Senators--Mr. 
Metzenbaum and Mr. Abourezk--kept this Senate from reaching a decision 
13 days and 1 night and still had hundreds of amendments and just as 
many dilatory actions available as ever.
  I know it can be done. I know how to do it. But it was decided in the 
Democratic Caucus that we would not do that. We do, however, still need 
to see that budget. I think there is every reason the American people 
should know what is in the President's budget before their elected 
representatives in this body cast their votes in connection therewith.
  Consequently, I ask this question: Would it be possible--this will be 
a matter for both leaders, not just the majority leader, but mainly the 
majority leader--would it be possible to put this matter over until 
next Wednesday, which would allow Monday for the President to send his 
budget up to the Congress and then would allow the Senate Tuesday and 
Wednesday in which to amend, to debate, and to make a final decision on 
the concurrent resolution on the budget? In the meantime a decision 
could be made with respect to the reconciliation resolution as well. It 
might very well be that a time agreement could be worked out, and the 
majority leader has been interested in that. I have been interested in 
it. Mr. Gramm and Mr. Domenici have expressed some interest in it. Mr. 
Nickles has expressed interest, and others.
  I think there is every good reason why it might be wise to do that. A 
unanimous consent request hase been under consideration. The majority 
leader discussed this again with me briefly last night at the time of 
the reception the Senate was having in honor of the spouses of the 
Senators. Would it be possible to delay final passage of the budget 
resolution until next Wednesday? I know it would inconvenience some 
Senators. But what is more important? The inconvenience to the 
Senators, or wisdom and the proper judgment when it comes to casting 
our votes for those whom we represent?

[[Page S3397]]

  I don't think there is a Senator here who would disagree with my 
statement that, yes, there will be inconveniences, perhaps some trips 
would have to be canceled, but that is all in a day's work. We get paid 
for our work. We have a responsibility to our people. Perhaps there 
will be no more important vote that will be cast by the Senate than the 
vote on this concurrent budget resolution and the vote with respect to 
the reconciliation process.
  That ends my question.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I believe there were actually several ideas 
or questions propounded there. I will try to respond as directly and as 
briefly to them as I can so we can go forward with the next amendment 
that is pending.
  First of all, as to when to take up the issue of reconciliation and 
the process for giving working people tax relief to be able to keep a 
little bit more of their money at home, I think clearly it needs to 
come relatively shortly, I assume tomorrow, in whatever form it might 
be so that there will be ample time to discuss it fully. I know that 
Senators on both sides of the aisle will want to be heard on that.
  I must say that if we start down this trail of spending all the 
money, there won't be anything left for tax relief anyway so we won't 
need this reconciliation process. I think clearly to have tax cut in 
reconciliation is something that we would like to have considered and 
would be prepared to act on it. But as the Senator knows, we would be 
willing to consider doing it another way, doing it the way it was done 
even back in the 1980s. We have offered an idea, a unanimous consent 
agreement to Senator Byrd, and I have discussed it with Senator 
Daschle. Senators on this side have looked at that. I thought perhaps 
we could get something worked out on that, and we could get that done.
  We would have to consult with the chairman of the Finance Committee 
and the ranking member on the Finance Committee, make sure everybody 
understood how that would work and make sure that it would give us some 
of the important benefits that reconciliation gives you, even though it 
wouldn't do it that way.

  We will be glad to continue to work with you and with others on the 
possibility of doing it through a unanimous consent agreement. I have 
discussed this with Senator Domenici and with Senator Grassley. They 
are interested, willing to work on it. They just want to make sure they 
know what is in it, and I think everybody on both sides wants to do 
that.
  As far as the President's budget, we have the outlines of the main 
categories that the President is suggesting. I guess if we waited later 
on, we would get line by line by line. I don't think that is what a 
budget resolution does. A budget resolution sets the broad categories 
and then we go forward. Then in the Appropriations Committee, for 
instance, they decide how much they are going to put in there for 
Interior or Transportation. I don't believe the President dictates 
that. We have acted before when we didn't have the President's budget.
  As far as the idea of postponing it, there would be two or three 
problems with that. We had not indicated that we were thinking about 
doing that. We would have to check on both sides with 100 Senators to 
make sure that their schedules could be changed to that effect. I 
suspect there would be a lot of resistance to it. We would have to 
check with both sides of the aisle on that. Worst of all, in my 
opinion, we need to move forward. We need to move forward with this 
budget resolution--good, bad, ugly. We ought to move it on into 
conference and see if we can get an agreement there and then come back 
and vote on it so we can get on with the substantive business. This 
just gives us the outlines of how we can proceed and then we get into 
the details: What we do on Medicare, what we do on defense, and what we 
do on tax policy.
  I think we ought to go ahead. I spoke earlier about my concern about 
the economy and the need for us to get this process on down the road so 
that we can be looking at taking some action on tax policy and on 
substantive issues, too.
  I see Senator Domenici. As chairman of the Budget Committee, I don't 
want to try to respond to all of this. Some of it being in his 
jurisdiction, would he like to comment on this, too?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I surely don't want to use much time. You have answered 
with the authority of the majority leader. I just wanted to say to you, 
Mr. Leader, and to you, Senator Byrd, I never in my wildest dreams 
thought we would finish this budget resolution without your spending an 
hour on a subject you think is most important; namely, reconciliation. 
We have already spent a lot of hours debating. Frankly, in my opinion, 
although the debates were luxurious, I think it would have served us 
well if you would have already taken an hour and I would have taken an 
hour and Senator Conrad taken an hour and we discussed reconciliation. 
I don't intend to get finished without that hour of debate about what 
it is all about and what it means taking place. As soon as we can, I 
would be for working it out. Our leader thinks we should work it out on 
an issue that is formulated before the Senate.
  I do want to comment, since you have indicated two things. One, we 
should have the President's budget first. That is OK. That is a good 
wish. I would suggest that when we had a new President named Bill 
Clinton, we didn't have a budget before we approved the budget 
resolution, including the conference report on the budget resolution. 
Then we got a budget. I think there is precedent for a new President 
for us to proceed.
  Secondly, I think you did do more than, as much as anyone present 
here, of course, in drafting this 25-year old Budget Impoundment Act. 
Frankly, you have one version about reconciliation that the Senator 
from New Mexico, who has now used your product you developed with 
others--I have used it as chairman or ranking member or member for 25 
years. So while you drew it, I have watched it implemented.
  I will present to the Senate my strong conviction that there is 
nothing in this act that precludes using reconciliation for a tax 
decrease bill. I just wanted to make sure I amplified to that extent.
  Mr. BYRD. I don't want to take a lot of time. Let me just say this: 
We can argue back and forth as to what has been done in the past. I 
think we have to deal with what is in the present. We have here ``A 
Blueprint for New Beginnings.'' My problem with this is that it is kind 
of a peekaboo budget. You see just a little of the budget. But what I 
see is disturbing. For example, with respect to the research in fossil 
fuel, that is going to be cut. That is important to the energy 
resources of this Nation, particularly at this time.

  Now we have the clean coal technology program, for which the 
President has said he supports a $2 billion increase. That is well and 
good. But the problem is, as I look through this peekaboo budget, I 
find that much of the money he is going to put into clean coal 
technology is going to come out of fossil fuel research. That is 
important to coal, oil, and gas. That is just one thing of which I got 
a little glimpse. I think we will find the word ``redirect'' in this 
blueprint a number of times.
  I noted in the Washington Post of Sunday, April 1, that the Community 
Policing Service Program, COPS, would be cut by 13 percent, from $1 
billion to about $850 million. I noted also in the New York Times--I 
believe, of yesterday--well, I don't seem to have it at my fingertips, 
but some programs are going to be cut. I think Senators should know 
what programs are proposed to be cut in the President's budget before 
they vote on final passage of this concurrent resolution on the budget 
before us.
  I am going to take my seat soon, but for these reasons, which could 
be debated at considerable length, I hope it will be possible to have 
the President's budget before we take the final plunge on the 
concurrent resolution on the budget. It seems to me it isn't too much 
to ask that that final action--perhaps the final 10 hours, if it could 
be worked out that way--be put over until next Tuesday or Wednesday.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. BYRD. If I have the time, yes.
  Mr. REID. I say to the Senator, I appreciate very much directing his 
attention to this. I think we would be better off putting this off 
until we got back from the break. I think we have 30 hours left. 
Everybody is trying to finish this bill by tomorrow. In the back

[[Page S3398]]

room, I say to the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, we 
have over 120 amendments just on our side. You know, unless we have 
some time to work this out, there is going to be a big vote-athon. We 
need to do this with wisdom and discretion and have a document before 
making a decision.
  I think the Senator is right on the ball, right in the direct line in 
which we should be going. This is so important, I would be willing to 
cancel what I have next week in Nevada and do this. But if people are 
unwilling to do that, let's do it after we come back, set it at a 
certain time and have a unanimous consent agreement that we can 
complete this thing in a matter of a day or two. People would feel 
better about it. We can sift through the 120 amendments and get to what 
really needs to be done.
  Senator Conrad has done a wonderful job of managing this bill. I 
don't know of anybody who has ever managed a bill better than he has. 
But with these time constraints and big things such as debt reduction, 
defense, reconciliation, his hands are tied to manage this bill 
properly. I certainly think the Senator from West Virginia is headed in 
the right direction.

  Mr. DOMENICI. If the Senator will yield to me for a moment, and I 
understand the ranking member wants to speak. What I have here is also 
a peekaboo budget, but it is not President Bush's, it is President 
Clinton's. It is a peekaboo budget, borrowing your expression. It is 
``A Vision of Change for America,'' but it is not a budget.
  Mr. BYRD. That is right.
  Mr. DOMENICI. This was sent up here on February 17, and in a 
marvelous show of support for the new President, before any budget was 
forthcoming, a budget resolution was adopted based on this peekaboo 
budget.
  Mr. BYRD. That is a peekaboo budget.
  Mr. DOMENICI. It went to conference for him, and it came back as a 
conferred-upon bill. So we are kind of used to looking at what you all 
do, and then when you are doing something really borderline 
spectacular, we say we would like to be a mimic. You did it in such a 
great fashion for him, we wanted to do a little bit for President Bush.
  Mr. BYRD. I wish the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, 
however, had had a markup in the committee, as was the case when that 
peekaboo budget was sent up here in 1993.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Yes.
  Mr. BYRD. The Senator will admit, will he not, that the Budget 
Committee did, in that instance, 1993, have a markup in the committee 
and then reported that measure out of the committee with a report? And 
I assume the minority was allowed to publish its views. Would the 
Senator respond? Was that not the case with that 1993 peekaboo budget?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Indeed, it was.
  Mr. BYRD. In the case of that 1993 peekaboo budget, did the 
committee, in that instance, report out a bill? Did it mark up the 
bill?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Yes, it did.
  Mr. BYRD. If it did, why doesn't the Senator, who admires that role 
model, wish to have a markup in the committee and report out a 
concurrent resolution on this budget?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Senator, I tried to explain the difference. You had the 
luxury of a majority here in the Senate. In fact, you had three votes 
more than a majority. We went in the Budget Committee not even stephen. 
Everybody already made up their minds. You had a majority of Democrats 
willing to vote out a Presidential budget when Republicans didn't want 
it. So it is the same thing I had, except it turns out 11-11, an equal 
number. So there is a very big difference.
  Mr. BYRD. There is a difference, but, with all due respect, that is 
no reason not to have a markup. Just because the people saw fit to make 
it 50/50 in this Senate, that is no reason to avoid having a markup in 
committee. We have a responsibility to the people who send us here to 
have a markup in the committee.
  The point I am trying to make is that we ought to see the President's 
budget. It would not be asking too much of all of us, I don't think, to 
hold over until next Tuesday or Wednesday to complete action on this 
concurrent resolution on the budget. Let us see the President's budget.
  While I have the floor--and then I will sit down--I have the New York 
Times of Wednesday, April 4. I will read the headline: ``Bush Budget on 
Health Care Would Cut Aid to Uninsured.''
  That is one example of why I think the Senate ought to have the 
President's budget. We don't know what is in it.
  Mr. CONRAD. Would the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. BYRD. I am glad to yield.
  Mr. CONRAD. Isn't it true that while President Clinton had not 
submitted a full budget, he had submitted sufficient detail so the cost 
of his budget proposals could be estimated by the Committee on the 
Budget, the CBO, the Joint Committee on Taxation, and so the Senate, 
acting in 1993, had all of the reestimates done that told us the cost 
of his proposal?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes, absolutely.
  Mr. CONRAD. And is it not true as well that President Bush has not 
submitted sufficient detail for the Congressional Budget Office or the 
Joint Committee on Taxation to do the reestimates that were done on the 
previous President's budget, so we do not have those reestimates; isn't 
that true?
  Mr. BYRD. The Senator is preeminently correct.
  Mr. CONRAD. I will go on, if I can, when we look at the level of 
detail that has been provided by President Bush versus President 
Clinton, there is a very stark and glaring set of differences. For 
example, the Clinton document had tables that provided year-by-year 
budget numbers for 68 specific proposals to reduce discretionary 
spending.
  The tables also included the year-by-year numbers for 90 specific 
proposals to cut mandatory spending.
  The budget also provided year-by-year detail for proposed increases 
in spending.
  The Bush budget does not provide any year-by-year numbers for 
specific proposed changes in discretionary spending; is that not the 
case?
  Mr. BYRD. Oh, absolutely; no question about it; absolutely.
  Mr. CONRAD. So to compare 1993 to this year does not really stack up, 
does not hold up under much scrutiny because, as the Senator from West 
Virginia has made so clear, we had full reestimates then of the cost of 
the President's tax-and-spending proposals, sufficient detail for the 
Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation to tell 
us what those costs were. We do not have it now. And we had a full 
Budget Committee markup then. We do not have any Budget Committee 
markup now.
  The fact is, we do not have sufficient detail from the President to 
have the kind of objective independent analysis done to inform the 
Senate of the cost of the President's tax-and-spending proposals.
  Mr. BYRD. Absolutely. Moreover, that was a budget for 5 years. That 
was a 5-year plan in 1993. This is a 10-year plan. Additionally, the 
resolution was used in that instance to reduce deficits, not to 
increase them.
  Finally, my good friend from New Mexico speaks of that 1993 budget as 
a role model. Not one of the Senators on that side of the aisle voted 
for it. Not one Republican in the House voted for it.
  What did it do? It put the Nation on the course for reduction of the 
deficits and for the accumulation of huge projected surpluses. Whether 
they ever materialize or not is another question. But what are we so 
afraid of? Why is this Senate afraid to see the President's budget?
  Mr. CONRAD. We were promised the President's budget, were we not? We 
were promised it was going to be here on April 2 before we took up a 
budget resolution on the floor. And presto disto, the next thing we 
know, there is no budget until April 9 when we have completed action. 
It is a very unusual circumstance.
  If we are going to be fair and objective about comparing 1993 to now, 
we will see there are very significant differences. Most significant, 
we have had no budget markup in the committee, and there was sufficient 
detail on what President Clinton sent us that the Congressional Budget 
Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation were able to give us an 
objective independent analysis of the cost of the President's spending-
and-tax proposals which we do not have here. We do not have them.

[[Page S3399]]

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the very able majority leader for 
his courtesy in calling attention to the inquiry I had previously 
indicated I wanted to make, and for his listening to it. I am sure he 
will give some consideration to it. I hope he will. And I hope all 
Senators will be willing to consider the request to go over until next 
Tuesday or Wednesday so that we might have the benefit of having the 
information that is in the President's budget.
  I am sure it is not very far away. It is probably on the printing 
presses within three blocks of this Chamber right now. If they plan to 
have it up here next Monday, it is available somewhere right now.
  I thank the majority leader for entertaining my request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I understand the distinguished Senator 
from Pennsylvania is going to go next. I did not want to keep burdening 
Senator Byrd with my statements. He has made his. I want to make mine.
  I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the introduction of 
the President's revenue proposals by the Joint Committee on Taxation, 
March 8, 1993.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                              Introduction

       This pamphlet, prepared by the staff of the Joint Committee 
     on Taxation, provides a summary of the revenue provisions 
     included in the President's budget proposal, as submitted to 
     the Congress on February 17, 1993.
       The provisions summarized in this pamphlet are those 
     revenue proposals contained in the Department of the Treasury 
     document, Summary of the Administration's Revenue Proposals, 
     February 1993 (``Treasury document''). The pamphlet also 
     summarizes three other revenue proposals included in the 
     Office of Management and Budget document, A Vision of Change 
     for America, February 17, 1993 (``OMB document''), that would 
     amend the Internal Revenue Code: taxation of social security 
     benefits; increase of inland waterways fuel excise tax; and 
     use of Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund amounts for 
     administrative expenses.
       The pamphlet descriptions of the President's proposals are 
     taken without modification from the Treasury document and the 
     OMB document. The pamphlet summary description includes 
     present law and a reference to any recent prior Congressional 
     action on the topic and whether the proposal (or a similar 
     proposal) was included in recent budget proposals (fiscal 
     years 1990-1993). Part I of the pamphlet summarizes the 
     revenue-reduction proposals from the Treasury document; Part 
     II summarizes the revenue-raising proposals from the Treasury 
     document; and Part III summarizes three additional revenue 
     proposals from the OMB document.
       The Treasury document's introductory statement indicates 
     that ``[t]he descriptions included in this report are not 
     intended to be final. Many of the proposals will be revised 
     in the process of finalizing the Administration's fiscal year 
     1994 Budget. The descriptions are also not intended to be 
     comprehensive. Numerous details, such as rules relating to 
     the prevention of abusive transactions and the limitation of 
     tax benefits consistent with the principles of the proposals, 
     will be provided in connection with the presentation of the 
     Budget and upon submission of legislation to implement the 
     Administration's plan.''
       Further, the Treasury document states that ``[i]n addition 
     to the proposals summarized in this report, the 
     Administration also supports initiatives to promote sensible 
     and equitable administration of the internal revenue laws. 
     These include simplification, good governance and technical 
     correction proposals.''

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, that is the Joint Committee's 
introduction on President Clinton's tax package that was considered, 
voted on, passed, went to conference with the House and passed, and 
this is all they could say about what the President submitted:

       The Treasury document's introductory statement indicates 
     that ``[t]he descriptions included in this report are not 
     intended to be final. Many of the proposals will be revised 
     in the process of finalizing the Administration's fiscal year 
     1994 Budget. The descriptions are also not intended to be 
     comprehensive. Numerous details, such as . . . limitation of 
     tax benefits consistent with the principles of the proposals, 
     will be provided in--

  And it goes on.
  I want everybody to know, according to the tax Web site, no tax 
revenue tables were available with reference to President Clinton's 
budget until way past the time the budget resolution was considered. As 
a matter of fact, the first tax tables were not made available to the 
Ways and Means Committee until May 4 of 1993, the second tables on June 
17, 1993, and we had already produced the budget resolution in both 
Houses, gone to conference, and adopted it.
  I do not care to go on forever. I believe we ought to treat President 
Bush, as well as Republicans and Members of the Senate, as President 
Clinton was treated when he was a so-called brand new President.

  We will proceed, and I want the Record to show, and I will put the 
letter in tomorrow, that every member of the Budget Committee on the 
Republican side asked the chairman, this chairman, not to consider 
markup because they said it would not yield any fruitful results. While 
that is my decision, I want everybody to know I did not make it 
singularly. I had a pretty good backing from Republicans who did not 
think it would amount to anything other than long, protracted debates 
and nothing positive would be accomplished.
  Before we proceed and I yield to my friend from Pennsylvania, I was 
asked by the majority leader to propose what I assume is a usual 
consent request.

                          ____________________